Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 29 Feb 2008 14:55:16 -0600 | From | Paul Jackson <> | Subject | Re: [RFC/PATCH] cpuset: cpuset irq affinities |
| |
Like Ingo, I like the approach.
But I am concerned it won't work, as stated.
Unfortunately, my blithering ignorance of how one might want to distribute irq's across a system is making it difficult for me to say for sure if this works or not.
The thing about /dev/cpuset that I am afraid will get in the way with this use of cpusets to place irqs is that we can really only have a single purpose hierarchy below /dev/cpuset.
For example, lets say we have:
/dev/cpuset boot big_special_app a_few_isolated_rt_nodes batchscheduler batch job 1 batch job 2 ...
I guess, with your "cpuset: cpuset irq affinities" patch, we'd start off with /dev/cpuset/irqs listing the irqs available, and we could reasonably decide to move any or all irqs to /dev/cpuset/boot/irqs, by writing the numbers of those irqs to that file, one irq number per write(2) system call (as is the cpuset convention.)
Do these irqs have any special hardware affinity? Or are they just consumers of CPU cycles that can be jammed onto whatever CPU(s) we're willing to let be interrupted?
If for reason of desired hardware affinity, or perhaps for some other reason that I'm not aware of, we wanted to have the combined CPUs in both the 'boot' and 'big_special_app' handle some irq, then we'd be screwed. We can't easily define, using the cpuset interface and its conventions, a distinct cpuset overlapping boot and big_special_app, to hold that irq. Any such combining cpuset would have to be the common parent of both the combined cpusets, an annoying intrusion on the expected hierarchy.
If the actual set of CPUs we wanted to handle a particular irq wasn't even the union of any pre-existing set of cpusets, then we'd be even more screwed, unable even to force the issue by imposing additional intermediate combined cpusets to meet the need.
If there is any potential for this to be a problem, then we should examine the possibility of making irqs their own cgroup, rather than piggy backing them on cpusets (which are now just one instance of a cgroup module.)
Could you educate me a little, Peter, on what these irqs are and on the sorts of ways people might want to place them across CPUs?
> + if (s->len > 0) > + s->len += scnprintf(s->buf + s->len, s->buflen - s->len, " ");
The other 'vector' type cpuset file, "tasks", uses a newline '\n' field terminator, not a space ' ' separator. Would '\n' work here, or is ' ' just too much the expected irq separator in such ascii lists? My preference is toward using the exact same vector syntax in each place, so that once someone has code that handles one, they can repurpose that code for another with minimum breakage.
-- I won't rest till it's the best ... Programmer, Linux Scalability Paul Jackson <pj@sgi.com> 1.940.382.4214
| |